If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Reply to Thread

Your Message

Please correctly re-type the phrase f o o t d o c t o r in the form box. Re-type it without the extra spaces and put the one space where it should be. We apologize for having to do this but this silliness helps slow the spammers.

Title:

Additional Options

Additional Options:

Automatically parse links in text

Topic Review (Newest First)

04-27-2004, 10:35 AM

Bitter sour grapes, troll; You just got badly.....

<img src="http://members.roadfly.org/dls/chair%20grind.gif">

04-27-2004, 10:19 AM

Jim Derrig 93 750

When you learn to argue on a level greater than

that of a 14 year old, maybe I'll talk with you again.

Contrary to your assertion that "nothing" prevents another team from acquiring its own, personal tire manufacturer, the unfortunate fact is that no other tire manufacturer in the whole darned world is willing to do it!

Put down your comic books and video games and look up the term "monopoly." Ferraristone is a technological monopoly created by a combination of economic factors that the other F1 teams have no control over.

04-27-2004, 10:10 AM

Jim Derrig 93 750

\"Michewilliams\" would be just as bad . . .

. . . as Ferraristone. Two wrongs do not make a right and a "formula one" limited to two competitive teams due to rules/economic/legal manipulations would be a disaster.

Anyway, I've already discussed this and we're going around in circles.

Seriously, would you really be happy if Michelin signed a 5-year contract with Renault to focus 100% of its efforts on that team and supply the other teams with junk? This would guarentee that for the next 5 years the ONLY consistently competitive teams would be "Ferraristone" and "Renaulin." Why the heck should a sport put up with off-track lawyer moves like that? Why defend it.

Since F1 is a developmental formula and not a spec formula, money/economics always will play SOME part, but when ONE team gains the sort of economic advantage which Ferraristone has, there is nothing wrong with saying "this is too much" and pulling in the reigns.

04-25-2004, 07:12 PM

arfboo

the fly in your ointment....

there is absolutely nothing to prevent Michelin from doing exactly the same thing if they thought it was a good idea.<p align=center>
<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/booboo/.Pictures/axis.jpg"height=180 width=180">
<img src="http://www.vmsc.org/fun/images/topslalom.gif"WIDTH=180 HEIGHT=100>
<img src="http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2003/08_Agosto/21/loghini/milan1.gif"ALIGN=CENTER>
</p>

04-25-2004, 04:47 PM

Baloney; The best TEAM wins; TEAM consists >

of driver, builder, mechanics, component suppliers, pit crew, sponsors. Right now Ferrari has the best, most reliable combination. There is nothing--NOTHING--stopping any other team in the top tier from replacing them, EXCEPT the sum of all these parts. If one part (such as JPM, the whiny baby driver), is lacking, the sum--the TEAM--will not win.

What if McLaren-Michelin were winning 70% of the races? Would you be whining then? LOL.

Your conspiracy theories about Ferrari & Bridgestone is all just sour grapes, Jimbo.

Please purchase a larger tinfoil helmet, and add yourself to this esteemed group:

04-25-2004, 04:00 PM

Jim Derrig 93 750

revisionist history . . .

If I recall correctly, Ferraristone gained back its edge after the FIA determined after Hungary that the tire Michelin used was not legal. Assuming the FIA was correct, why does it say about the situation when the only way Ferraristone can be defeated is by breaking the rules?

I agree advantages are transient. However, I think the best analogy is that of a weighted nickle. If the "heads" side is a bit heavy, then tails will come up more often, but it still is possible to get heads on a given throw.

A team with its own personal tire manufacturer is playing with a weighted nickle. It has a distinct advantage which cannot be overcome CONSISTENTLY, although on occassion a Michelin team will find an advantage (e.g., Button's pole this weekend). Over the course of many races, however, the team with the advantage will prevail statistically.

Do I think Ferrari and MS would not be winning a sh-tload of races if everyone was on a spec tire? Not at all, since they are very good in other areas. The racing certainly would be closer, though.

As for your comment about the "team I like," I've been watch F1 since 1969 and don't favor any team. Although I own a BMW, I don't root for Williams. So please don't suggest my argument is an emotional rant against Ferrari.

04-25-2004, 03:46 PM

Jim Derrig 93 750

wrong . . .

I've been out of town so it took me a while to get back to this.

Again, you are incorrect. There NEVER has been a period in F1 when only two engines were available. see the link below.

More important, even when the Cosworth DFV was dominant, it was available to ANYONE who wanted it, and it was not designed with any specific team in mind.

And so it is with the other items you've mentioned. Sure, Williams uses Alcon and Ferrari uses Brembo, but if Williams wants Brembo's they can go down to the store and get 'em. Indeed, McLaren switched brakes suppliers this year (and is regretting it, imho).

Anyway, you've almost asked the right question, but once again it asssmes the conclusion: "F1 is a team-development excercise. Why would a team not seek the best advantage?"

It would be more correct to say "F1 is a team-development exercise. Why would a team not seek the best advantage WITHIN THE RULES." Obviously, a team will and should and I'm not "blaming" Ferrari or Bridgestone for the current situation. They had a perfect right to act as they did and maximise their advantage.

I'm just saying the rules are far from immutable and right now the rules suk because they allow a situation which consistently favors the one team that has its own, personal tire manufacturer.

So change the stupid rule.

I guess much of this comes from my background as an attorney with an economics background. I see Ferraristone as an artificial technology monopoly that has manipulated the circumstances to gain an advantage. I have no more problem with destroying this consortium than I have with the sherman antitrust act busting up the standard oil monopoly back in the early 1900's.

Sure, Ferrari made a "great" move in forming Ferraristone, but it was a "great" business/legal move, not a great racing move. I watch F1 for racing, not to see which team has the best lawyers. When off-track legal relationships leave one team with a practical death-grip on the track, its time to do a little "trust busting" and change the rules.

as much as it looks like its gonna be a repeat of the 2002 season, lets not forget last year when williams had a great 2nd half.

04-20-2004, 11:29 PM

arfboo

there used to be only 2 engines...

....there was a period where the choice was Ferrari or Cosworth....then there were Turbo's vs normaly aspirated. There used to be only one tire goodyear, then there were periods where you had goodyear and pirelli or Firestone or way back Dunlops...Why stop there, Ferrari use Brembos, Bar uses Alcon.....
F1 is a team-development excercise. Why would a team not seek the best advantage?
I'm for less restrictions not more. Otherwise you end up with CART or IRL<p align=center>
<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/booboo/.Pictures/axis.jpg"height=180 width=180">
<img src="http://www.vmsc.org/fun/images/topslalom.gif"WIDTH=180 HEIGHT=100>
<img src="http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2003/08_Agosto/21/loghini/milan1.gif"ALIGN=CENTER>
</p>

Your argument is flaccid & facile at best--sorry. The advantage is a morphous, changing thing. Don't penalize success, else, when the team YOU like is successful, your words come back to haunt you.

<img src="http://members.roadfly.org/dls/chair%20grind.gif">

04-20-2004, 08:21 PM

Thank you; I also do tricks...

<img src="http://members.roadfly.org/dls/chair%20grind.gif">

04-20-2004, 07:49 PM

Mr. Snake

You're a sick pup, DLS ; }

04-20-2004, 04:09 PM

Jim Derrig 93 750

so now we come full circle . . .

You apparently concede, finally, that Ferraristone has an advantage. You say it is "part of F1" which is perfectly circular. The discussion is over whether is SHOULD be part of F1. Simply stating your conclusion is not reasoned argument.

Tires are different than the other components you speak of because there are only two tire manufacturers. There are many engine mfgs, drivers, chassis designers, pit bosses, etc. But for tires, only two choices. And one "choice" is not a choice because if a team other than Ferrari choses Bridgestone, it will be snubbed/ignored.

You put the cart before the horse. It isn't a situation where Bridgestone had only 4 teams to chose from like they do this year, with Ferrari being the only sensible one to concentrate on. Bridgestone had McLaren and told them to kiss off because they were going to concentrate on Ferrari. They've also chased off BAR. There is no worthwhile team other than Ferrari on the Bridgestone side because that is the way Ferraristone WANTS it. They WANT it that way because it gives them a defacto edge--Michelin has finite resources and cannot possible devote the same attention to 3 or 4 teams which Bridgestone need only give to a single team.

If there were only two engine manufacturers in F1, then I WOULD be complaining if one mfg supplied only a single team and thus had the advantage of being able to design specifically for one car. It would result in a de facto economic edge for that one team which the others would not be able to consistently overcome. Nor could the second engine manufacturer be expected to devote the incredible resources which would be necessary to design a special engine for each of the remaining teams.

If Michelin decided to form Michelaren or Michenault to combat Ferraristone then I would be bitching just as loud. A two-team series based on defacto economic and supply constraints would be just as stupid as the single team series we have now.

Well, at least the race for second place in the WMC will be tight. Funny how close it gets when you put all the teams on the same tires . . .

04-20-2004, 07:34 AM

arfboo

Hmm..no offense but the foil hat needs to come off

Ferrari went with Bridgestone as did Sauber Jordan and Minardi. You really expect a company like Bridgestone to optimize their tires for Minardi?

How is Michelin making Williams specific tires any different? In fact, how is this concept a problem at all, for goddsake, only Mclaren have Mercedes engines, only Williams have BMW engines, you are not complaining about that!

Sure Ferrari's close relationship with Bridgestone is an advantage as is having the best drivers, manufacture, engineers, team manager etc.etc. That's what makes an F1 team.

the "artificial" aspect is FERRARISTONE, not the poor suckers who are foreclosed from ever having such a relationship with a tire manufacturer. Ferrari has an artificial advantage created by the boardroom deal they struck with Bridgestone.

I'll try the airplane analogy: suppose a bunch of fuselage manufacturers are competing to build the the best plane. One manufacturer gets to "marry" a wing supplier, and develops its fuselage jointly with that supplier. NO OTHER TEAM IS ALLOWED THIS ADVANTAGE. All the others develop a fuselage and, a few weeks before the race season, they get handed a wing and have to make do the best they can at mating it to their fuselage.

[Yes, I know that Michelin works with the other teams but it has to work with them ALL and thus can't tailor the tire like Ferraristone can]

Now could you explain to me why the latter teams are "lagging"? My point always has been that no team can be expected to compete, on a consistent basis, with another team that has its own, personal tire manufacturer, and who can thereby develop tires tuned specifically to their car.

I find nothing interesting about such an advantage. It is dictated by lawyers and economics and it is no more "sport" than watching Mircosoft's antitrust manuevers. If you're a Ferrari fan or have an axe to grind with BMW, Mercedes, etc, it might be emotionally satisfying. Sort of like watching Shaquille O'Neal join you're alma mater high school's team for the sole purpose of pounding a cross town rival by 100 points. For someone actually interested in good, competitive basketball, however, that would be a crashing bore. Ditto for the current F1 situation.

Having said all this, I'll admit that Michelin could copy Ferraristone and create, say, "Michewilliams" or "Michenault", thus turning F1 forever into a two-team series. Still a yawn, still not "sporting" and still not "fair."

04-19-2004, 06:29 PM

arfboo

but coming up with a better solution is not

in the case you mention Michelin having a tire that does not conform to the dimetions clearly stated in the rules, is.

Sure rules can be changed but they should never be changed to make teams that are lagging, artificially competitive.<p align=center>
<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/booboo/.Pictures/axis.jpg"height=180 width=180">
<img src="http://www.vmsc.org/fun/images/topslalom.gif"WIDTH=180 HEIGHT=100>
<img src="http://www.corriere.it/Media/Foto/2003/08_Agosto/21/loghini/milan1.gif"ALIGN=CENTER>
</p>

04-19-2004, 05:59 PM

Jim Derrig 93 750

What sponsorship $ ????

are you talking about that would be lost? I wasn't aware that Bridgestone or Michelin was kicking any $ into the F1 kitty, or to any team, short of supplying tires and spending millions on "free" R&D.

Even if they are, the amount of TV and ticket $$ which will be lost if the season is over after 9 races will overwhelm anything the tire mfg's might be paying to anyone.

Will it be economically viable for Bernie E to buy out the time remaining on either Bridgestone's or Michelin's contract and then to amend the rules to make sure the remaining supplier plays no favorites. I wouldn't be surprised.

04-19-2004, 05:50 PM

Jim Derrig 93 750

rule can be defective . . .

. . . and are changed all the time, so I see nothing "unsporting" about changing one which Ferrari has manipulated into giving it an exclusive advantage which cannot be matched by its competitors.

Hypothetical: Bridgestone patents a new, clearly superior tire design, and will only supply the new design to Ferrari. Because of the patent, Michelin cannot copy the design. How would allowing Bridgestone to exercise such monopoly power in F1 be "sporting"? Would we really need to have Bridgestone prove the design's superiority 17 times a year, every year, or should we just change the rule?

The present situation is not so extreme, but the Ferraristone marriage certainly gives that team a definite advantage. This advantage is chiefly an economic one, dictated by boardroom deals, not engineering excellence. Short of Michelin dogging all of its teams but one, there is no way to compete with it. Rules which allow this sort of economic manipulation are not "sporting" but defective and should be changed.

This thread has more than 20 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.